The Presidency1) List and explain THREE (3) ways U.S. Presidents are more AND less powerful than the British Prime Ministers? The U.S presidents are less powerful than the British Prime Ministers when it comes to the power distribution to the Congress and Supreme Court. The president is elected separately to the legislature while the prime minister is appointed by legislature after general election. Due to this design in the U.S political system, the presidents are often outsiders with limited actual domestic power. In most cases, the most efficient way for the presidents to solve certain issues is to compromise. The president can choose his cabinet but it must be approved by the Senate. Although it seems to be a formality, it contains the possibility that the president might need to work with people he does not prefer in the first place. Such restrictions from the Senate clearly make the president less powerful. The prime minister, however, has the power to choose or remove his own cabinet without permission from other agencies. The most he has to do is to discuss with very close colleagues, but he does not have to report to anyone. In terms of majority in Congress, the U.S presidents are less powerful than the British Prime Ministers. The presidents have no guaranteed majority in congress, while the prime ministers do. This is because the presidents only hold the title but does not head the party they are in. It is because the Party Central Committee weighs much in the party together with state-level groups defending political independence. On the contrary, the prime minister is a member of the parliament and the head of the congress majority. Therefore, the prime minister has more say in the policies that his party wants to promote. While the president’s party cannot easily decide whether their favoured policies can become actual law, the prime ministerial policies are very likely to become legislation and regulations. In other words, under the influence of the majority party, the legislature is more likely to vote yes as a part of the government so that it won’t be banished.However, the president does have more power than the prime minister when it comes to his authority. The title itself gives the president a lot of power as the main figure in the political world of the U.S. The president’s name is protected as a major authority and the Constitution also protects the president from being sued during his election. What is more, the president has the veto power over congressional legislation for he has to sign all documents prior to being effective as law. The prime minister, on the other hand, does not have such kind of pocket veto right over legislation. Of course, any overuse of such power might lead to lower efficiency in the congress and lack of democracy. Meanwhile, the U.S president has a higher say in foreign affairs at an international level since the U.S has more exposure and international bargaining power in the global setting.

The Bureaucracy1) Even though reforming the bureaucracy is difficult, what are TWO (2) reform that you think must occur within the federal bureaucracy? Explain.The first reform in need is to set up the reward system for those in bureaucracy positions. Unlike private enterprises that provide high returns to those capable in position, the bureaucracy has less to offer but more responsibility. For example, the secretary of president has lots of openings that are seldom filled. This is because the reward of such position is much less compared to the sacrifice one would make once he/she gets on board. As a secretary of president, the conflict-of-interest would require him/her to sell the present company’s stock and give up the pension plan. The moving costs and other items won’t be covered and he/she cannot lobby executive branch for life once he/she leaves office. Another example is the district attorney/judge in the bureaucracy. Their peers are working in big banks and hedge funds defending as lawyers, making a great deal of money out of their job. They themselves, on the contrary, are also restricted by the conflict-of-interest and can only commit to limited salaries. That is the reason why many officers in the bureaucracy gave up their jobs and turned to the private sector. It is true that strict principle must be followed to ensure justice on the executive branch and legislative branch, but a weak compensation plan for those in position can only drive those capable away instead of attracting them. In reality, there are many few that would sacrifice for nation without other considerations. If the gap between the federal bureaucracy and other occupations is too big, it would only urge corruption and lower efficiency. Therefore, a better reward system is in need. Another reform needed is the higher efficiency on federal bureaucracies, namely the nation-owned agencies like Amtrak. The reason why these bureaucracies shall be reformed is simple. These organizations are losing money, and the giant, redundant system is working so inefficiently that our public is continuing to complain. The Amtrak provides railway service throughout the country as a public transportation, but the tickets are sometimes more expensive than airplane tickets. Despite high ticket fees, the Amtrak has continued to be at loss during its operations. Recently, the Amtrak has cancelled several lines in order to cut operation expenses. Since it is a state-owned organization under the government without monopoly in the market, Amtrak is facing fierce competition from the private sector. Its competitors, mainly bus service companies like GreyHound and Megabus, have been operating smoothly. Besides driving, most passengers choose taking the bus for shorter routes, or flying over longer distances. In China, the railway system has developed enormously in the recent decade and people can take the train to almost every city. With strong government support, the train ticket is cheaper and the service is better. As a type of public transportation, Amtrak is also meant to be an economic, fast way for people to use frequently. Therefore, reforms shall happen for this kind of bureaucracy where the government act strong. Several mechanisms can be performed, including private capital support and systematic reform. Also the size of such bureaucracy shall shrink to a favourable size for higher efficiency. On other aspects, less regulations at lower levels and fewer administration requirements can also stimulate the organization to adapt to rapid social change.

Chapter 16: The Judiciary1) Do you think federal judges should exercise restraint or be activists judges? Explain.I believe that federal judges should exercise judicial restraint rather than judicial activism. The former encourages the judges to limit their exercise of power, fully hesitate, and defer to the legislature to a great extent unless the laws are unconstitutional. The latter encourages judges to actively rule based on their personal or political concerns besides the support of written law. First of all, judicial activism can be harmful to the principle of constitutional law. As the law that defines relationship between entities and power branches, the constitutional law set the fundamental tone for customary law, statutory law, conventions, and other regulations. It not only grants power to the executive government but also limits certain aspects for the goal of balance. Since the federal judges represent the highest level of judiciary, they should rule according to the constitutional law for fairness and justice. The rule of law requires the judiciary to follow three principles: absolute supremacy of regular law against the influence of arbitrary power, equality before the law, and constitution being a result of the ordinary law. Therefore, the judges who exercise judicial restraint will do their best in deferring to the constitutional law when deciding related questions. They respect principles, establish precedent, and go to lengths in holding the authority of Constitution.What is more, judicial restraints defend the balance of the separation of powers in the United States. Some states that judicial activism may arrogate the power of the executive branch or appointed agencies, and therefore damage the principle of democracy. Although the times is changing, and that judicial activists believe that such change must be reflected in the interpretation of law itself, it is crucial that judges stick to the basic principle of separation of powers without impacts from personal or political preference. If the judges can easily shake the roots of the law or even the constitution, it is likely that the judiciary power becomes larger than the other two branches, which will affect the check and balances of the whole system. Finally, in terms of statutory construction and interpretation, the judicial restraint is a better option than judicial activism. As the process allows courts to interpret and apply laws in specific cases, the interpretation of judge is the key process. To avoid ambiguity and unclear readings, the judge shall follow methods and apply tools to fully interpret related legislations under restraint. Consider the consequence if the judge can interpret however he/she want to under the influence of judicial activism – it will only cause indiscrete. This is also why judges apply statutory interpretation and uses traditional rulings as reference. Meanwhile, the objective interpretation of law does not really exist under the ruling of individual judges. Even the most prominent jurists admit that they sometimes have to make certain choices when there are uncertainties in law. Therefore, judges shall be juridical restrained to ensure the principle of constitutional law, balance of separation of powers, and statutory construction and interpretation.